The actual Beast's Mark of the NWO, how it will come in, Satan's last days deceiption (testing you

Sat=Truth An=That which is not or negation Satan is by definition a lie, something that is believed as truth yet is not. Mark of God is belief that God is God, Mark of Beast is that physical reality is all there is. God is the only truth, everything except God is untruth or Satan. That Which is, Was and Will ever Be is The Truth of God.

The entirety of the KNOWN physical universe is Satan's manifestation of FORM, the power that gives it existance Is God. While quite entertaining, you can try to explain, even prove mathmatically that there is no God, because if a quanta, idividual sigularity is the ultimate reality there is no god that has power in it, Yet the truth is God is the ultimate power. The apperent paradox is resolved when one realizes that God is beyond time itself. Therefore the Universe is a tempory manifestation of God. A question was asked by God: What is it that I am, am not. The answer is Satan; anything that is limited by time itself is under the power of Satan. Your body will die, your mind will die, Everything you ever done in the physical world will cease to be known. To believe your self (mind) is greater then God is to worship Satan.

The statement: I know ___insert name of some limited form here___ is the ONE TRUE GOD is to surrender to Satan's power. Satan decieves using fear and fear based desires. For example is aliens came and said that the world will be destroyed and if you go with us, you will live forever in the heavens. How many will go with them? What if you were told the truth when you went they were going to harvest your DNA than incinerate your body so they can transport the information to their source intellegence and use it as the basis of creation of new life on other worlds? Would you still go? Do you want to have physical existence in time or existence with God? Pick one.

reply to post by wildtimes


A post of yours

I don't get how people aren't fleeing the RCC like Germans would flee Hitler's regime.

The Roman Catholic Church has ruined or ended more lives than all wars put together.
Can someone please explain to me, if you are Catholic, WHY do you not leave the church of horrors? Do you not know history?

And also, WHY is the Vatican and its army of monsters not held accountable at a global level, like Hitler was?

Seriously?
Oh, wait. Because the RCC is part of the cabal....funding lots of ongoing atrocities, still able to use fear and ignorance to keep their huge crowds in line.

a double standard here, JG isn't meant to make similar comments but you can?

I've been following his posts for a couple of months and can see much truth to all this

....Keep up the good work JG, it is appreciated and enlightening

While you're at it,maybe you could shine some light on these Noahide Laws?

This claims that belief in Jesus will be cause for beheading.

(Normally I wouldn't just quote from someone's blog,but the important points are there and can lead to further searching out the matter.)




seemytruth.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

Question: If the 69/70 weeks is so 'powerful', why did none of the New Testament writers ever appeal to it as proof that Jesus was the Messiah?

I am not sure why this is the case but the Jewish authorities see the Daniel 9 prophecy as 'powerful' that they have curses written all over their Talmud and similar writings for anyone who endeavors to number the days of Daniel 9.

A Sage said: "May the curse of heaven fall upon those who calculate the date of the advent of the Messiah, and thus create political and social unrest among the people." Sanhedrin, 97b.
Louis Newman and Samuel Spitz, The Talmudic anthology: tales and teachings of the rabbis (Behrman House, 1945): 277. ISBN 0874413036, 9780874413038

Rabbis after the time of Christ have pronounced a curse on anyone who would attempt to calculate the dates of this chapter. - Talmud Sanhedrin 97b, Soncino ed., p. 659.

Reference: Rabbinic Curse
------
I will seek to answer some of your other issues in my next reply back

You have not answered the question...
...only said that you and Veith are under a Rabbinic curse.

The fact remains that the period was seven times the length of the captivity began at the end of the captivity which is the concern of Daniel in Daniel 9:2...

"in the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem."

The answer to his concern is given in Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks (sevens) are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."

...but these conditions were not met...

So a period of grace seven times the length of captivity with specific conditions...
...was to follow the captivity specified in Daniel 9:25 as...

"from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem"...

...which was to and from Cyrus...

“That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.” Isaiah 44:28

The decree of Cyrus was issued at the end of the seventy years of captivity (about 538 BC)...
...the decree permitted the rebuilding of the temple...
...but the temple did not build itself...
...the builders working on the temple also built their own homes...
...according to Haggai 1:4 they were living in luxurious homes about 18 years later (approx 520 BC).

Veitch makes the same error most SDA apologists who are desperate to support 1844...
...he confuses the 'going forth' with the completion...
...and ignores the historical facts clearly laid out in scripture that the command was to and from Cyrus...
...just to support of their cultic belief that something significant happened in 1844.

It is just silly to suggest that the disciples/epistles don't mention Daniel 9 as proof of Jesus Messiahship because of some Rabbinic curse. It was clearly not mentioned because it was a chronographic period following the captivity and the conditions of its completion were clearly not met and was yet another big fail by Israel.

reply to post by iESOTERICuEXOTERIC

Really? I don't get why JG is doing this, either. It's not a double standard. It's a disdain for any flavor (color, sect, denominaton, outpost, mission) of Christianity. People will find their own way. There are no "tutors" or "leaders" or "preachers" required. The only thing that matters is the Golden Rule. All else is smoke and mirrors.

We all get there in the end.

EDIT: I see! You are pointing out that I once said the RCC was part of the cabal...and now I'm dismissing that idea!
Good catch, Eso! Yeah, I'm almost done reading an amazing book by Robert Wright Non Zero. The human race has been working toward global cooperation and unity since the dawn of itself.

Highly recommended reading.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

the New Age Movement is definitely wrong in their 'truth' of 'ascension' and the like

And you know this, how? Sorry, not biting.

My 2nd responsibility is to every non-Christian out there (meaning you)

Erm, excuse me. I believe that Christ lived, that his message was of utmost importance, that he was a great visionary...and that he did not die on the cross, but was "spirited" away by his Essene friends, lived out a long life in Kashmir, and was (is) venerated as St Issa.

to provide information about the specific circumstances of the coming of the false-Christ so that when it happens YOU will know that the information Adventists had on this event has absolutely correct, that their information was given to them by God (as he is outside of time) and that YOU will listen to what we have to say, begin to follow the Truth for yourself, and YOU too will be found in the 'Book of Life' as well.

Wow. Thanks. Good thing you came along just now, eh? Sheesh.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

Is the sea beast/little horn power the Papal power (If not then what is)?

We should begin with Daniel seeing as it was written first eh?

There are two Little Horn's in Daniel ... One Small and the other Insignificant...

There is a 'little horn' (Aramaic) in Daniel 7 that arises among ten and takes down three.
There is a 'little horn' (Hebrew) in Daniel 8 that come up from one of four.

The Daniel 7 'little horn' is ze`eyr which is Aramaic means 'little, small'...

The Daniel 8 'little horn' is mitstse`iyrah which is a Hebrew word meaning 'little, insignificant, a small thing'...


The little/small horn of Daniel 7...
..."came up among" ten and "after them" (verse 8, 24 - as an eleventh)...
...and is associated with the demise of three 'kings'...
...and "shall subdue three kings", "before whom three fell", "three of the first horns plucked up by the roots" (Dan 7: 8, 20, 24).

The 'insignificant, small, little' horn of Daniel 8...
...came up out of one of "four kingdoms" (Dan 8:22).


The 'little horn' of Daniel 7 came up toward the end of the fourth kingdom.
The 'little horn' of Daniel 8 comes up from the end of the third kingdom.

So clearly they are two different powers, described by different words in different languages...
...arising under different circumstances...
...but they have been confused because the KJV translators used the same words.

...to be continued...

the beast was nero/rome

the mark was a tattoo for tax collecting, like a tax ID number today

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the beast was nero/rome

the mark was a tattoo for tax collecting, like a tax ID number today

I have heard good arguments for Nero being the beast you are referring to...
...and it is a popular idea...
...personally I think Vespasian fits better...
...and it was under his power and by his son Titus that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD.

I am keeping an open mind until there is no room for doubt!

However,as I see things shaping up around us,if we do go to a cashless society,I can absolutely see the "chip" being "the mark" that we cannot buy or sell without.



Coverage under Obamacare will require an implantable microchip?
current.com...

"Tagging products and people. Despite much controversy, radio frequency identification chips have great potential in healthcare"
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

From
www.sodahead.com...

..."Now lets look at section 163 of HR3200, which gives the government a direct electronic access to your bank account which will work in conjunction with an implanted chip..... Page 58 Lines 5 through 15 reads: (D) enable the real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identity detection card; (E) enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims ...What does this mean? It means that the government will give everybody a health ID card that contains a machine readable device (magnetic strip or RFID chip) similar to a credit card. Embedded in this chip or strip is your Health Identification Number. When you visit a medical provider, the medical claims will be processed while you are still in the office. The medical providers will be paid in real time. The portion that you owe will be deducted from your bank account, in real time, according to HR 3200...."

Digital TV & Mandatory RFID Microchipping
educate-yourself.org...


More?....
search.yahoo.com...

"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." — Mayer Amsched Rothchild

What if "the love of money" really is "the root of ALL evil"?

Just throwing some more irons in the fire here. JG has his hands full!

The 4th beast will undoubtedly be the newly formed caliphate. You come to this determination after properly deciphering Nebuchadnezzars dream.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

It would be funny if it were not so sad JG...
...that while openly condemning Roman Catholicism you embrace their Soteriology.

Do this excercise to prove it to yourself...
...examine the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by Faith...
...available on the Vatican website at the following address...

www.vatican.va...

This joint declaration between Lutherans and Roman Catholics demonstrates the subtle difference between their respective view of the Gospel of salvation.

One thing you will notice is that SDA soteriology is closely identified with the Roman Catholic definition.

It is an irony that an organization so opposed to Roman Catholicism...
...has fallen for the most fundamental error of the Roman Catholic's...
...by embracing their view of how a man is right with God.

Jesus said, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

The Sabbath given to Israel was a symbol of this 'rest'...
...but you have chosen to argue for the Sabbath symbol...
...while rejecting the reality of the rest found only in the Gospel by ignorantly embracing Roman Catholic Soteriology.

The Mark of the Beast is not a 'day' issue but a 'rest' issue...
...how is it that a man is made right with God and finds rest for his soul?

Your current Soteriology defines you as having the real Mark of the Beast.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

is satan and lucifer one and the same entity ?

Hmmm but Jesus himself broke the rules about Sabbath day by healing and performing miracles on it. And he was sinless. How does that fit into your theory?

To the OP, I haven't read your entire set of postings. or the thread; I will try to this weekend (very busy couple of days for me). I first will say that while I have always thought the Adventists have some interesting things to say about both eschetology and the Catholic Church, I am not well versed in all the doctrine. I have always wondered about this devotion to Saturday Sabboth. I don't have a problem with it, I just don't think it is salvation critical, and drifts into a works vs grace argument. As a S. Baptist, I have course beleive in the doctrine of grace, grace alone, (and definatively over works, including Sabboth day observance, although I, (in fact we if I include the whole of S. Baptists, could be wrong).

Normally if/when this Sabbath debate comes up I hear the following verse.

Mark 2
23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

In essence, I have always taken this as Christ saying, " get over it, God gave you a day of rest, quit legallizing it".

Perhaps you can elaborate......

Again I will attempt, time permitting, to read the whole post/thread, if time permits.

Antichrist = 666

Carbon = 6 electrons, 6 protons, 6 neutrons

Man = carbon based

Man = Antichrist

/thread

Originally posted by icepack
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

 

is satan and lucifer one and the same entity ?

Yes, Lucifer is the name given when he was in Heaven....Satan is the name given after his rebellion and was thrown out of Heaven. When I describe religious teaching that are 'Luciferian' I am referring to things which sound good on the surface like 'peace', 'love', 'unity', 'selflessness' talk but really they are design to surround people with nurturing, pleasant sounding words that still leads to people's destruction (and detour people away from Jesus and often innocently possess themselves to one degree or another by these fallen-angels from things like mantras, meditations and similar 'spiritual' practices, once surrounded by these harmful spirits their thoughts and beliefs readily get led away from the true God), this is the feminine/light aspect of the dual-natured androgenic angel who is 'ruler of this world'. Satan is the masculine/dark aspect that appeals to people's selfishness, greed, going out and doing whatever heinous thing is needed to get what you want (like false flag attacks to foment public opinion for world war, assassinations of heads of state, installing dictator who will readily murder mass-portions of their own people, instigating bloody revolutions in countries who's leader isn't supportive of the global one government/one religion agenda under Satan, kidnapping and performing human sacrifices of children and adults to receive 'blessings' of plenty from Satan).

You may notice my quote used from Crowley where he says his 'perfected man' is of dual-nature in aspect...he describes the masculine aspect ('lord of heaven'/Apollo) as being represented by the sun. The supreme feminine goddess in pagan religion is almost always associated with the moon. In a sense all the major (and minor) pagan gods and goddesses are all 'Satan', I just used 'Lucifer' to sometime better distinguish the religious philosophy and method of deception (soothing words and actions) and sometimes just so I don't sound like a broken record.

In response to 'jjkenobi' and 'SrWingCommander'

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Hmmm but Jesus himself broke the rules about Sabbath day by healing and performing miracles on it. And he was sinless. How does that fit into your theory?

Some of your concerns should be answered from this earlier post. Please respond if this doesn't answer them still.

Concerning specifically the performing the miracle of healing (read first the post above to understand what Jesus already shows was the intention behind the Sabbath) then read the following:

Upon another Sabbath, as Jesus entered a synagogue. He saw there a man who had a withered hand. The Pharisees watched Him, eager to see what He would do. The Saviour well knew that in healing on the Sabbath He would be regarded as a transgressor, but He did not hesitate to break down the wall of traditional requirements that barricaded the Sabbath. Jesus bade the afflicted man stand forth, and then asked, "It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?" It was a maxim among the Jews that a failure to do good, when one had opportunity, was to do evil; to neglect to save life was to kill. Thus Jesus met the rabbis on their own ground. "But they held their peace. And when He had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, He saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other." Mark 3:4, 5.

When questioned, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?" Jesus answered, "What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." Matt. 12:10-12.

The spies dared not answer Christ in the presence of the multitude, for fear of involving themselves in difficulty. They knew that He had spoken the truth. Rather than violate their traditions, they would leave a man to suffer, while they would relieve a brute because of the loss to the owner if it were neglected. Thus greater care was shown for a dumb animal than for man, who is made in the image of God. This illustrates the working of all false religions. They originate in man's desire to exalt himself above God, but they result in degrading man below the brute. Every religion that wars against the sovereignty of God defrauds man of the glory which was his at the creation, and which is to be restored to him in Christ. Every false religion teaches its adherents to be careless of human needs, sufferings, and rights. The gospel places a high value upon humanity as the purchase of the blood of Christ, and it teaches a tender regard for the wants and woes of man. The Lord says, "I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir." Isa. 13:12.

When Jesus turned upon the Pharisees with the question whether it was lawful on the Sabbath day to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill, He confronted them with their own wicked purposes. They were hunting His life with bitter hatred, while He was saving life and bringing happiness to multitudes. Was it better to slay upon the Sabbath, as they were planning to do, than to heal the afflicted, as He had done? Was it more righteous to have murder in the heart upon God's holy day than love to all men, which finds expression in deeds of mercy?

In the healing of the withered hand, Jesus condemned the custom of the Jews, and left the fourth commandment standing as God had given it. "It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days," He declared. By sweeping away the senseless restrictions of the Jews, Christ honored the Sabbath, while those who complained of Him were dishonoring God's holy day.

Those who hold that Christ abolished the law teach that He broke the Sabbath and justified His disciples in doing the same. Thus they are really taking the same ground as did the caviling Jews. In this they contradict the testimony of Christ Himself, who declared, "I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love." John 15:10. Neither the Saviour nor His followers broke the law of the Sabbath. Christ was a living representative of the law. No violation of its holy precepts was found in His life. Looking upon a nation of witnesses who were seeking occasion to condemn Him, He could say unchallenged, "Which of you convicteth Me of sin?" John 8:46, R. V.

The Saviour had not come to set aside what patriarchs and prophets had spoken; for He Himself had spoken through these representative men. All the truths of God's word came from Him. But these priceless gems had been placed in false settings. Their precious light had been made to minister to error. God desired them to be removed from their settings of error and replaced in the framework of truth. This work only a divine hand could accomplish. By its connection with error, the truth had been serving the cause of the enemy of God and man. Christ had come to place it where it would glorify God, and work the salvation of humanity.

"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath," Jesus said. The institutions that God has established are for the benefit of mankind. "All things are for your sakes." "Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's." 2 Cor. 4:15; 1 Cor. 3:22, 23. The law of Ten Commandments, of which the Sabbath forms a part, God gave to His people as a blessing. "The Lord commanded us," said Moses, "to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive." Deut. 6:24. And through the psalmist the message was given to Israel, "Serve the Lord with gladness: come before His presence with singing. Know ye that the Lord He is God: it is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture. Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise." Ps. 100:2-4. And of all who keep "the Sabbath from polluting it," the Lord declares, "Even them will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer." Isa. 56:6, 7.

"Wherefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." These words are full of instruction and comfort. Because the Sabbath was made for man, it is the Lord's day. It belongs to Christ. For "all things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made." John 1:3. Since He made all things, He made the Sabbath. By Him it was set apart as a memorial of the work of creation. It points to Him as both the Creator and the Sanctifier. It declares that He who created all things in heaven and in earth, and by whom all things hold together, is the head of the church, and that by His power we are reconciled to God. For, speaking of Israel, He said, "I gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them,"--make them holy. Ezek. 20:12. Then the Sabbath is a sign of Christ's power to make us holy. And it is given to all whom Christ makes holy. As a sign of His sanctifying power, the Sabbath is given to all who through Christ become a part of the Israel of God.

And the Lord says, "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; . . . then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord." Isa. 58:13, 14. To all who receive the Sabbath as a sign of Christ's creative and redeeming power, it will be a delight. Seeing Christ in it, they delight themselves in Him. The Sabbath points them to the works of creation as an evidence of His mighty power in redemption. While it calls to mind the lost peace of Eden, it tells of peace restored through the Saviour. And every object in nature repeats His invitation, "Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." Matt 11:28. The Desire Of Ages, chapter 29 p. 286-289, E. White

Jesus was showing in His correspondence with his accusers that He in fact never broke the Sabbath but that since the time when the Old Covenant was broken that a steady stream of onerous regulations were placed on the Sabbath that God never meant for His Holy Day. Through these exchanges Jesus is trying to clarifying the intent behind the original commandment of the Divine Law that was first given in Eden (do write-up on this here), followed by the Hebrews under slavery in Egypt (Exodus 5:5 'rest' Strong's #7673 'shabbat', found used in Genesis 2:2) and practised under the gathering of the manna before the Mosaic law was given.

Exodus 16:22-30
And so it was, on the sixth day, that they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for each one. And all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. 23 Then he said to them, "This is what the Lord has said: 'Tomorrow is a Sabbath rest, a holy Sabbath to the Lord. Bake what you will bake today, and boil what you will boil; and lay up for yourselves all that remains, to be kept until morning.' " 24 So they laid it up till morning, as Moses commanded; and it did not stink, nor were there any worms in it. 25 Then Moses said, "Eat that today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, there will be none."
27 Now it happened that some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather, but they found none. 28 And the Lord said to Moses, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? 29 See! For the Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

The Sabbath was made part of the terms of the New Covenant (Isaiah 56:6,7 and Isaiah 58:13,14), and the reminded that it remains in the New Testament (Hebrews 4:9 rest, 'sabbatismos') and that the Sabbath is still kept in the New Heaven and the New Earth (Isaiah 66:22-23).

Some information on the difference between the Divine Law and the Mosaic Law

Divine Law a Continuing Rule of Life
But then what about the believer today? If Mosaic law is abolished, is he under law? Is there for him a rule, a standard of conduct?

It is difficult for many to accept that law is in any sense a part of the believer's life today; law to them is wholly contrary to and exclusive of grace. Early dispensational writers especially were strong promoters of this view.10 The difficulty of this teaching lies in the clear presence in the apostolic writings of so many scores of commands addressed to believers as well as even explicit references to law (e.g. Gal. 6:2; James 1:25). Sin itself is defined as "lawlessness" (anomia, I John 3:4). Law is written on the heart of the New Covenant believer (Heb. 8:10), but it is law nonetheless. Clearly, the Christian is given law, a rule of life to which he is bound.

In answer to this problem, adherents of this view argue that these requirements are gracious rather than legal, being given within the framework of grace; that is, grace makes him willing and able to do what is right apart from legislated demands, and the believer is exhorted to righteousness merely on the basis of what God has done for him.11 After arguing long that no Christian can be placed under law ("or any respect of the law . . . or any phase of law") Chafer claimed that the "commandments" of Christ are not really "commands" after all(!) but the "teachings of grace."12 But this effectively reduces law to advice and commands to suggestions. God, of course, does not merely give advice. His revealed will is law--however gracious the context. McClain argued that the standard of conduct for today's believer is the example of Jesus and not law at all,13 but even that begs the question, for if there is any standard at all to which men are accountable, that standard (whatever it is) carries the force of law.

Accordingly, in those passages which Paul argues that the believer is "not under law" the meaning is not that he has no rule of life. At times Paul may argue that the believer is free from the law of Moses (e.g. Gal. 3:19-25; cf. Peter, Acts 15:10). At other times he may argue that the believer is free from the law as a means of justification (Rom. 10:4 and perhaps 6:14-1514)--he is not under its penalty of condemnation. But he never implies that there is no more law. Grace frees a man from the law's condemnation, but it does not leave him without a binding rule of life.

McClain argued that since there are no penalties stated in the New Testament it follows that there are no laws.15 However, there is a stated penalty: Hebrews 12 speaks plainly of chastisement for the disobedient son. Of course, there are no Mosaic penalties, but then the penal code of the law of Moses is not necessary for one not under Mosaic law. And while this chastisement may not have the same penal character as those penalties imposed by Moses, the fact of chastening for disobedience remains clear.

The believer today indeed has a rule of life. As was the case before and during the Mosaic economy, all men are bound to a divine standard of righteousness. Just as Divine law against idolatry, murder and theft was in effect before Moses, so it is binding after Moses. The Formula of Concord (1576), although confusing the law of God and the law of Moses, is entirely correct in its insistence that the law of God is today a "certain rule after which [regenerate men] may and ought to shape their life."16 The law of God--with or without formal codification--reflects eternal principles of righteousness that are always obligatory. It is an eternal standard; never could it become any less a binding rule of life.
...
Conclusion

But whatever the similarities or differences, it is to the stipulations of the New Covenant that today's believer must look for his rule of life. To look to the law of Moses, or any part of it, in order to establish a standard for today is to look in the wrong place. The basis of the Old and New Covenants is the same--the law of God. The details, however, are different, and this is to be expected. The law of God is still in effect, only under different codification. For any law to be enforced upon the Church it must be a law enjoined within the framework of New Covenant teaching, for it is the obligation of today's believer to follow these terms in his life under God.

Summary

The law of God is always binding and could never be anything else. Before Moses there was no formal codification of it. Since Moses there have been differing codifications of it in accordance with covenantal relationships. The Old and the New Covenants entail varying responsibilities, some of which are identical to each other (because of a common basis) and some exclusive of each other (because of fulfillment and further revelation). But the standard of conduct for today's believer is found in the framework of New Covenant teaching, not that of the Old Covenant. To this rule of life he is bound as to law, and this law, like that of Moses, is sufficient to bring men "to an acknowledgment of their sins." The Continuing Relevance of the Divine Law

The Decalogue in Both Testaments

Commandment....................NT Parallel
#1 - No other gods...............1 Corinthians 8:5-6
#2 - No graven image...........1 Corinthians 10:7, 14; 1 John 5:21
#3 - Name of YHWH.............James 5:12
#4 - Sabbath.......................Hebrews 4:9
#5 - Honor father & mother....Ephesians 6:1
#6 - Murder.........................Mt. 5:21-22; James. 2:11
#7 - Adultery.......................Mt. 5:27-28; 1 Corinthians 6:18
#8 - Theft...........................Ephesians 4:28
#9 - False witness................Ephesians 4:25
#10 - Coveting.....................Ephesians 5:3

edit on 6-7-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)

reply to post by On the Edge


Yeah, some full hands lol...

If you notice the dream from Ernie Knoll 'Stand Fast' (from this post) where it is outlined about this identity card agreeing to the 'National Day of Reverence'. I don't know if this is exactly how it will be implemented (especially all around the whole world) but notice that the identity card is merely a tool in the implementation of the beast's mark control-grid system and not the actual 'mark' itself. If people were going to be ruled out of Heaven for having an identity card (like a drivers license) then I would say God is an ridiculous God and I would not want anything to do with being subservient to Him. It is not the tool/mechanism of implementation that is important to God, it is the matter that your acceptance of it will show your allegiance isn't to the Creator (based on what you are agreeing to when accepting it, it will show one does not know, love or trust God sufficiently, God does not seek lukewarm faith and divided loyalty)...does that sound reasonable?

reply to post by HangTheTraitors

What a JOKE. C'mon people THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, a joke for certain. Some of us do in fact know better, and know that the book of myths will not get anyone anywhere except yet another stay on a ruined world while yet again they have the opportunity to learn, but refuse to yet again. The OP has gotten a great deal of historical facts in this forum, but he disregards all and believes only his little book. He actually thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that his version of God created everyone, and everyone is a direct descendant of Adam. No matter that we are of many species and races here on the surface. I stopped listening to him as soon as I researched his female prophet Ellen White and found out how delusional she is. Blind leading the blind here, move along.